Mixing
What would be a seemingly fair, but still unfair way of dividing electorates?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Introduction
I'm creating humongous city in a renaissance-esque fantasy setting. This city is governed by a council/senate with 51 seats. Division of these seats is based on ownership of stocks in 5 different merchant guilds in the city.
Question
How would one design a division algorithm that gives the illusion of a fair allocation of seats/stock, but is ultimately unfair in that it grants more seats to the super-rich and none/very few to the not-so-rich.
Notes
- One person can hold many seats
- ...but never a majority of them, unless they own ALL stocks.
- Each merchant guild has exactly 1000 stocks, which means 5000 stocks in total.
- Only stocks are divided by merchant guild. The seats does not necessarily go to specific guild stocks.
- One can own stocks from multiple guilds.
- Anyone can buy stocks
- Owning a few stocks does not guarantee a seat (obviously)
- It should be possible to mathematically figure out the system, but complex enough that most people can't do it.
- This is a ridiculously unfair system as it literally states that you need lots of money to be allowed influence over the government.
- Seats are not voted on by the stock-holders. You either have enough to get a seat or you don't.
Answers from comment questions
- Seats can not be empty. All seats are divided among the stock-holders and you cannot decline a seat, when you're given one.
government
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 19 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Introduction
I'm creating humongous city in a renaissance-esque fantasy setting. This city is governed by a council/senate with 51 seats. Division of these seats is based on ownership of stocks in 5 different merchant guilds in the city.
Question
How would one design a division algorithm that gives the illusion of a fair allocation of seats/stock, but is ultimately unfair in that it grants more seats to the super-rich and none/very few to the not-so-rich.
Notes
- One person can hold many seats
- ...but never a majority of them, unless they own ALL stocks.
- Each merchant guild has exactly 1000 stocks, which means 5000 stocks in total.
- Only stocks are divided by merchant guild. The seats does not necessarily go to specific guild stocks.
- One can own stocks from multiple guilds.
- Anyone can buy stocks
- Owning a few stocks does not guarantee a seat (obviously)
- It should be possible to mathematically figure out the system, but complex enough that most people can't do it.
- This is a ridiculously unfair system as it literally states that you need lots of money to be allowed influence over the government.
- Seats are not voted on by the stock-holders. You either have enough to get a seat or you don't.
Answers from comment questions
- Seats can not be empty. All seats are divided among the stock-holders and you cannot decline a seat, when you're given one.
government
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 19 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Introduction
I'm creating humongous city in a renaissance-esque fantasy setting. This city is governed by a council/senate with 51 seats. Division of these seats is based on ownership of stocks in 5 different merchant guilds in the city.
Question
How would one design a division algorithm that gives the illusion of a fair allocation of seats/stock, but is ultimately unfair in that it grants more seats to the super-rich and none/very few to the not-so-rich.
Notes
- One person can hold many seats
- ...but never a majority of them, unless they own ALL stocks.
- Each merchant guild has exactly 1000 stocks, which means 5000 stocks in total.
- Only stocks are divided by merchant guild. The seats does not necessarily go to specific guild stocks.
- One can own stocks from multiple guilds.
- Anyone can buy stocks
- Owning a few stocks does not guarantee a seat (obviously)
- It should be possible to mathematically figure out the system, but complex enough that most people can't do it.
- This is a ridiculously unfair system as it literally states that you need lots of money to be allowed influence over the government.
- Seats are not voted on by the stock-holders. You either have enough to get a seat or you don't.
Answers from comment questions
- Seats can not be empty. All seats are divided among the stock-holders and you cannot decline a seat, when you're given one.
government
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Introduction
I'm creating humongous city in a renaissance-esque fantasy setting. This city is governed by a council/senate with 51 seats. Division of these seats is based on ownership of stocks in 5 different merchant guilds in the city.
Question
How would one design a division algorithm that gives the illusion of a fair allocation of seats/stock, but is ultimately unfair in that it grants more seats to the super-rich and none/very few to the not-so-rich.
Notes
- One person can hold many seats
- ...but never a majority of them, unless they own ALL stocks.
- Each merchant guild has exactly 1000 stocks, which means 5000 stocks in total.
- Only stocks are divided by merchant guild. The seats does not necessarily go to specific guild stocks.
- One can own stocks from multiple guilds.
- Anyone can buy stocks
- Owning a few stocks does not guarantee a seat (obviously)
- It should be possible to mathematically figure out the system, but complex enough that most people can't do it.
- This is a ridiculously unfair system as it literally states that you need lots of money to be allowed influence over the government.
- Seats are not voted on by the stock-holders. You either have enough to get a seat or you don't.
Answers from comment questions
- Seats can not be empty. All seats are divided among the stock-holders and you cannot decline a seat, when you're given one.
government
government
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 52 mins ago
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
asked 2 hours ago
Gunnar Södergren
1163
1163
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 19 more comments
3
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
3
3
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 19 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
So there are 51 seats, meaning each guild gets 10, and there's one left for the ruler or something.
Each guild has 1000 shares of stock, meaning that if you own 100 shares then you should have a seat.
Looks simple. But there won't be clean lots of 100. Someone might own 125, while another owns 70, and you have a handful of merchants with 1 share each. Now, a person who owns 70 might go out and look for smaller shareholders with similar beliefs to support their claim on a seat, essentially a proxy position, but if the shares get split up a lot, with a lot of poorer people with only 1 share then that might be hard, so what would probably happen is that the guy with 125 would just vote the second seat so that at least all the votes are accounted for.
The rich people who own enough stock to already own one seat would be in place to claim the empty seats, while the less rich would be unlikely to get any say at all, and the normal people who can't even afford a single share would be even less likely.
Also, 5000 shares is pretty limited for any decent size city, meaning that they won't be cheap, and you'd only be able to buy one if someone else was willing to sell, which would drive the price up if someone was bidding to get enough for a full seat.
Example:
Bill has 125 shares.
Ted has 120 shares.
Sherryl, Pam, Nancy, Sam, Pat, and Rodge have 105 each.
Don has 70.
the rest are split up to varying amounts among merchants and gentry.
Everyone above 100 has enough stock to legitimately claim one seat, and because because Bill and Ted have more than the others and they are on the council already they claim an extra seat each.
If Don wants a seat he has to go out and talk to the people who own the remaining 55 shares, and see if they will either sell them (assuming he can afford more) or let him borrow them as a proxy. If he can get over the 100 share threshold then he'd be able to take the extra seat that Ted is claiming. Now Ted might not like this, and so can go to the people loaning Don their shares and make them a better offer, give them sweetheart deals or tax breaks, offer to pay more for their shares, or in some cases use extortion (which would be dangerous since these are still wealthy enough people to own stock at all).
If he can get Don back bellow 100, then Don would lose the seat and Ted could claim it back.
On the other side, if Bill can muster enough support as proxy, maybe by recruiting Don and a few others, he could get enough borrowed stock to claim the extra seat that Ted has, giving himself 3 votes.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You wanted complicated maths and loophole abuse? Lets do this.
We're going to use the Log function. Specifically, the inverse log.
By Calculating the inverse log of the number of seats you want, divided by 22.03, then rounding that number to the next whole number of stocks, we reach the threshold of stocks required to own that number of seats.
If you're wondering why 22.03, it's because using that number forces you to need exactly 1000 stocks for 10 seats.
This gives us the following thresholds:
Num Seats. Num Stocks
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 3
- 7
- 19
- 50
- 136
- 368
- 1000
Now, at first glance you'd think that any schmuck with a stock would have a seat, but that's why I say it's a Threshold. You need at least that many stocks. Seats are actually determined in order of most owned stocks. So, if you own the most stocks at 501, you have met the threshold for 9 seats. The next guy, even if he owns the other 499, can only claim the remaining 1 seat.
The 51st seat is reserved for the guy who owns the most stocks across all 5 merchant guilds.
Now, if you want to work out how many stocks are worth, you need to perform the following maths (lets say we have 50 seats, for simplicity, and we want to find out X, the number of seats):
50 = invLn(X)/22.05
50*22.05 = invLn(X)
1101.5 = invLn(X)
Ln(1105.5) = X
7.008... = X
So, we can have 7 seats with 50 stocks. Assuming no-one owns more stock than us anyway.
So, you could theoretically own 46 seats, whilst only holding 2,505 stocks total. Barely half of them.
((If someone better at formatting can help with my Seats -> Stocks table, I'd appreciate it))
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Right now your system is quite resilient, yes you can buy the whole system but that's expensive.
Current system:
- ~98 stocks per seat.
- Fill any remaining unclaimed seats with the largest remaining stockholders.
There's not a lot of room to exploit this system other than the direct purchase of stocks. The only thing more resilient would be:
- Largest 51 stockholders.
We need to create some weaknesses to get our crowbar into the cracks
- 10 seats per guild.
- 1 seat appointed by first past the post election for an upstanding member of society to break any tied votes.
Now you have the opportunity to elect the pirate king and get a free extra seat, however you still have to be the largest player in the game. So lets add an extra rule:
- Minimum holding of 100 stocks (total across all guilds) to hold a seat
Now if I hold 1 stock there's a seat empty somewhere and that can't be. It needs to be offered to someone who holds enough stocks to hold a seat, which basically means someone who already holds a seat is getting an extra one cheap. The balance of the system is now off kilter, the small stock holders are affecting the major players by giving them a boost.
The more stocks held by stockholders holding <100 stocks, the more valuable each stock over that 100 threshold is.
If there are enough small players then a small group of large stockholders can control the whole system.
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
So there are 51 seats, meaning each guild gets 10, and there's one left for the ruler or something.
Each guild has 1000 shares of stock, meaning that if you own 100 shares then you should have a seat.
Looks simple. But there won't be clean lots of 100. Someone might own 125, while another owns 70, and you have a handful of merchants with 1 share each. Now, a person who owns 70 might go out and look for smaller shareholders with similar beliefs to support their claim on a seat, essentially a proxy position, but if the shares get split up a lot, with a lot of poorer people with only 1 share then that might be hard, so what would probably happen is that the guy with 125 would just vote the second seat so that at least all the votes are accounted for.
The rich people who own enough stock to already own one seat would be in place to claim the empty seats, while the less rich would be unlikely to get any say at all, and the normal people who can't even afford a single share would be even less likely.
Also, 5000 shares is pretty limited for any decent size city, meaning that they won't be cheap, and you'd only be able to buy one if someone else was willing to sell, which would drive the price up if someone was bidding to get enough for a full seat.
Example:
Bill has 125 shares.
Ted has 120 shares.
Sherryl, Pam, Nancy, Sam, Pat, and Rodge have 105 each.
Don has 70.
the rest are split up to varying amounts among merchants and gentry.
Everyone above 100 has enough stock to legitimately claim one seat, and because because Bill and Ted have more than the others and they are on the council already they claim an extra seat each.
If Don wants a seat he has to go out and talk to the people who own the remaining 55 shares, and see if they will either sell them (assuming he can afford more) or let him borrow them as a proxy. If he can get over the 100 share threshold then he'd be able to take the extra seat that Ted is claiming. Now Ted might not like this, and so can go to the people loaning Don their shares and make them a better offer, give them sweetheart deals or tax breaks, offer to pay more for their shares, or in some cases use extortion (which would be dangerous since these are still wealthy enough people to own stock at all).
If he can get Don back bellow 100, then Don would lose the seat and Ted could claim it back.
On the other side, if Bill can muster enough support as proxy, maybe by recruiting Don and a few others, he could get enough borrowed stock to claim the extra seat that Ted has, giving himself 3 votes.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
So there are 51 seats, meaning each guild gets 10, and there's one left for the ruler or something.
Each guild has 1000 shares of stock, meaning that if you own 100 shares then you should have a seat.
Looks simple. But there won't be clean lots of 100. Someone might own 125, while another owns 70, and you have a handful of merchants with 1 share each. Now, a person who owns 70 might go out and look for smaller shareholders with similar beliefs to support their claim on a seat, essentially a proxy position, but if the shares get split up a lot, with a lot of poorer people with only 1 share then that might be hard, so what would probably happen is that the guy with 125 would just vote the second seat so that at least all the votes are accounted for.
The rich people who own enough stock to already own one seat would be in place to claim the empty seats, while the less rich would be unlikely to get any say at all, and the normal people who can't even afford a single share would be even less likely.
Also, 5000 shares is pretty limited for any decent size city, meaning that they won't be cheap, and you'd only be able to buy one if someone else was willing to sell, which would drive the price up if someone was bidding to get enough for a full seat.
Example:
Bill has 125 shares.
Ted has 120 shares.
Sherryl, Pam, Nancy, Sam, Pat, and Rodge have 105 each.
Don has 70.
the rest are split up to varying amounts among merchants and gentry.
Everyone above 100 has enough stock to legitimately claim one seat, and because because Bill and Ted have more than the others and they are on the council already they claim an extra seat each.
If Don wants a seat he has to go out and talk to the people who own the remaining 55 shares, and see if they will either sell them (assuming he can afford more) or let him borrow them as a proxy. If he can get over the 100 share threshold then he'd be able to take the extra seat that Ted is claiming. Now Ted might not like this, and so can go to the people loaning Don their shares and make them a better offer, give them sweetheart deals or tax breaks, offer to pay more for their shares, or in some cases use extortion (which would be dangerous since these are still wealthy enough people to own stock at all).
If he can get Don back bellow 100, then Don would lose the seat and Ted could claim it back.
On the other side, if Bill can muster enough support as proxy, maybe by recruiting Don and a few others, he could get enough borrowed stock to claim the extra seat that Ted has, giving himself 3 votes.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
So there are 51 seats, meaning each guild gets 10, and there's one left for the ruler or something.
Each guild has 1000 shares of stock, meaning that if you own 100 shares then you should have a seat.
Looks simple. But there won't be clean lots of 100. Someone might own 125, while another owns 70, and you have a handful of merchants with 1 share each. Now, a person who owns 70 might go out and look for smaller shareholders with similar beliefs to support their claim on a seat, essentially a proxy position, but if the shares get split up a lot, with a lot of poorer people with only 1 share then that might be hard, so what would probably happen is that the guy with 125 would just vote the second seat so that at least all the votes are accounted for.
The rich people who own enough stock to already own one seat would be in place to claim the empty seats, while the less rich would be unlikely to get any say at all, and the normal people who can't even afford a single share would be even less likely.
Also, 5000 shares is pretty limited for any decent size city, meaning that they won't be cheap, and you'd only be able to buy one if someone else was willing to sell, which would drive the price up if someone was bidding to get enough for a full seat.
Example:
Bill has 125 shares.
Ted has 120 shares.
Sherryl, Pam, Nancy, Sam, Pat, and Rodge have 105 each.
Don has 70.
the rest are split up to varying amounts among merchants and gentry.
Everyone above 100 has enough stock to legitimately claim one seat, and because because Bill and Ted have more than the others and they are on the council already they claim an extra seat each.
If Don wants a seat he has to go out and talk to the people who own the remaining 55 shares, and see if they will either sell them (assuming he can afford more) or let him borrow them as a proxy. If he can get over the 100 share threshold then he'd be able to take the extra seat that Ted is claiming. Now Ted might not like this, and so can go to the people loaning Don their shares and make them a better offer, give them sweetheart deals or tax breaks, offer to pay more for their shares, or in some cases use extortion (which would be dangerous since these are still wealthy enough people to own stock at all).
If he can get Don back bellow 100, then Don would lose the seat and Ted could claim it back.
On the other side, if Bill can muster enough support as proxy, maybe by recruiting Don and a few others, he could get enough borrowed stock to claim the extra seat that Ted has, giving himself 3 votes.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
So there are 51 seats, meaning each guild gets 10, and there's one left for the ruler or something.
Each guild has 1000 shares of stock, meaning that if you own 100 shares then you should have a seat.
Looks simple. But there won't be clean lots of 100. Someone might own 125, while another owns 70, and you have a handful of merchants with 1 share each. Now, a person who owns 70 might go out and look for smaller shareholders with similar beliefs to support their claim on a seat, essentially a proxy position, but if the shares get split up a lot, with a lot of poorer people with only 1 share then that might be hard, so what would probably happen is that the guy with 125 would just vote the second seat so that at least all the votes are accounted for.
The rich people who own enough stock to already own one seat would be in place to claim the empty seats, while the less rich would be unlikely to get any say at all, and the normal people who can't even afford a single share would be even less likely.
Also, 5000 shares is pretty limited for any decent size city, meaning that they won't be cheap, and you'd only be able to buy one if someone else was willing to sell, which would drive the price up if someone was bidding to get enough for a full seat.
Example:
Bill has 125 shares.
Ted has 120 shares.
Sherryl, Pam, Nancy, Sam, Pat, and Rodge have 105 each.
Don has 70.
the rest are split up to varying amounts among merchants and gentry.
Everyone above 100 has enough stock to legitimately claim one seat, and because because Bill and Ted have more than the others and they are on the council already they claim an extra seat each.
If Don wants a seat he has to go out and talk to the people who own the remaining 55 shares, and see if they will either sell them (assuming he can afford more) or let him borrow them as a proxy. If he can get over the 100 share threshold then he'd be able to take the extra seat that Ted is claiming. Now Ted might not like this, and so can go to the people loaning Don their shares and make them a better offer, give them sweetheart deals or tax breaks, offer to pay more for their shares, or in some cases use extortion (which would be dangerous since these are still wealthy enough people to own stock at all).
If he can get Don back bellow 100, then Don would lose the seat and Ted could claim it back.
On the other side, if Bill can muster enough support as proxy, maybe by recruiting Don and a few others, he could get enough borrowed stock to claim the extra seat that Ted has, giving himself 3 votes.
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
edited 48 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
answered 1 hour ago
AndyD273
29.7k253129
29.7k253129
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
There can't be any empty seats. All seats will be allocated to someone.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
@GunnarSödergren That's what I meant when I said the person with 125 would vote that seat. They don't have enough stock for a full 2 seats, but enough to claim the "empty" seat until someone else gets enough stock to take it. If the guy with 70 can buy or borrow enough stock to get over the 100 threshold then they'd be able to claim it themselves, and if the guy with 125 can convince a few of the small stock holders to take their stock back then 70 would fall below the threshold again.
– AndyD273
1 hour ago
1
1
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Ah, and a person with 126 would get their second seat before a person with 124, etc, etc? So first give 1 seat to everyone with 100+, then divide the rest on by one from the top down? And once someone below 100 manages to buy up to 100+, they are given the extra seat held by the lowest 100+ owner?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
1
1
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
Basically, if I understand right, you'd have senators "in sede forte" positions. Those with at least 100 shares. They have a guaranteed seat; a strong position to be in. Then you'd have senators "in sede tenente" positions. Those with a majority of a position (51 to 99 shares) who would be able to command a seat and withstand a coup by all but a very powerful coalition of small shareholders. Lastly, you'd have senators "in sede debile" positions. These are, like your example, those with perhaps 25 to 49 shares. (cont)
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
1
1
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
@GunnarSödergren Yeah, exactly. I added an example, but that's essentially what you said.
– AndyD273
20 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
You wanted complicated maths and loophole abuse? Lets do this.
We're going to use the Log function. Specifically, the inverse log.
By Calculating the inverse log of the number of seats you want, divided by 22.03, then rounding that number to the next whole number of stocks, we reach the threshold of stocks required to own that number of seats.
If you're wondering why 22.03, it's because using that number forces you to need exactly 1000 stocks for 10 seats.
This gives us the following thresholds:
Num Seats. Num Stocks
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 3
- 7
- 19
- 50
- 136
- 368
- 1000
Now, at first glance you'd think that any schmuck with a stock would have a seat, but that's why I say it's a Threshold. You need at least that many stocks. Seats are actually determined in order of most owned stocks. So, if you own the most stocks at 501, you have met the threshold for 9 seats. The next guy, even if he owns the other 499, can only claim the remaining 1 seat.
The 51st seat is reserved for the guy who owns the most stocks across all 5 merchant guilds.
Now, if you want to work out how many stocks are worth, you need to perform the following maths (lets say we have 50 seats, for simplicity, and we want to find out X, the number of seats):
50 = invLn(X)/22.05
50*22.05 = invLn(X)
1101.5 = invLn(X)
Ln(1105.5) = X
7.008... = X
So, we can have 7 seats with 50 stocks. Assuming no-one owns more stock than us anyway.
So, you could theoretically own 46 seats, whilst only holding 2,505 stocks total. Barely half of them.
((If someone better at formatting can help with my Seats -> Stocks table, I'd appreciate it))
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You wanted complicated maths and loophole abuse? Lets do this.
We're going to use the Log function. Specifically, the inverse log.
By Calculating the inverse log of the number of seats you want, divided by 22.03, then rounding that number to the next whole number of stocks, we reach the threshold of stocks required to own that number of seats.
If you're wondering why 22.03, it's because using that number forces you to need exactly 1000 stocks for 10 seats.
This gives us the following thresholds:
Num Seats. Num Stocks
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 3
- 7
- 19
- 50
- 136
- 368
- 1000
Now, at first glance you'd think that any schmuck with a stock would have a seat, but that's why I say it's a Threshold. You need at least that many stocks. Seats are actually determined in order of most owned stocks. So, if you own the most stocks at 501, you have met the threshold for 9 seats. The next guy, even if he owns the other 499, can only claim the remaining 1 seat.
The 51st seat is reserved for the guy who owns the most stocks across all 5 merchant guilds.
Now, if you want to work out how many stocks are worth, you need to perform the following maths (lets say we have 50 seats, for simplicity, and we want to find out X, the number of seats):
50 = invLn(X)/22.05
50*22.05 = invLn(X)
1101.5 = invLn(X)
Ln(1105.5) = X
7.008... = X
So, we can have 7 seats with 50 stocks. Assuming no-one owns more stock than us anyway.
So, you could theoretically own 46 seats, whilst only holding 2,505 stocks total. Barely half of them.
((If someone better at formatting can help with my Seats -> Stocks table, I'd appreciate it))
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You wanted complicated maths and loophole abuse? Lets do this.
We're going to use the Log function. Specifically, the inverse log.
By Calculating the inverse log of the number of seats you want, divided by 22.03, then rounding that number to the next whole number of stocks, we reach the threshold of stocks required to own that number of seats.
If you're wondering why 22.03, it's because using that number forces you to need exactly 1000 stocks for 10 seats.
This gives us the following thresholds:
Num Seats. Num Stocks
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 3
- 7
- 19
- 50
- 136
- 368
- 1000
Now, at first glance you'd think that any schmuck with a stock would have a seat, but that's why I say it's a Threshold. You need at least that many stocks. Seats are actually determined in order of most owned stocks. So, if you own the most stocks at 501, you have met the threshold for 9 seats. The next guy, even if he owns the other 499, can only claim the remaining 1 seat.
The 51st seat is reserved for the guy who owns the most stocks across all 5 merchant guilds.
Now, if you want to work out how many stocks are worth, you need to perform the following maths (lets say we have 50 seats, for simplicity, and we want to find out X, the number of seats):
50 = invLn(X)/22.05
50*22.05 = invLn(X)
1101.5 = invLn(X)
Ln(1105.5) = X
7.008... = X
So, we can have 7 seats with 50 stocks. Assuming no-one owns more stock than us anyway.
So, you could theoretically own 46 seats, whilst only holding 2,505 stocks total. Barely half of them.
((If someone better at formatting can help with my Seats -> Stocks table, I'd appreciate it))
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
You wanted complicated maths and loophole abuse? Lets do this.
We're going to use the Log function. Specifically, the inverse log.
By Calculating the inverse log of the number of seats you want, divided by 22.03, then rounding that number to the next whole number of stocks, we reach the threshold of stocks required to own that number of seats.
If you're wondering why 22.03, it's because using that number forces you to need exactly 1000 stocks for 10 seats.
This gives us the following thresholds:
Num Seats. Num Stocks
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 3
- 7
- 19
- 50
- 136
- 368
- 1000
Now, at first glance you'd think that any schmuck with a stock would have a seat, but that's why I say it's a Threshold. You need at least that many stocks. Seats are actually determined in order of most owned stocks. So, if you own the most stocks at 501, you have met the threshold for 9 seats. The next guy, even if he owns the other 499, can only claim the remaining 1 seat.
The 51st seat is reserved for the guy who owns the most stocks across all 5 merchant guilds.
Now, if you want to work out how many stocks are worth, you need to perform the following maths (lets say we have 50 seats, for simplicity, and we want to find out X, the number of seats):
50 = invLn(X)/22.05
50*22.05 = invLn(X)
1101.5 = invLn(X)
Ln(1105.5) = X
7.008... = X
So, we can have 7 seats with 50 stocks. Assuming no-one owns more stock than us anyway.
So, you could theoretically own 46 seats, whilst only holding 2,505 stocks total. Barely half of them.
((If someone better at formatting can help with my Seats -> Stocks table, I'd appreciate it))
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
edited 53 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
answered 1 hour ago
Kyyshak
1,739316
1,739316
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Woah! Love it! Could you elaborate a bit more on how the calculation is made? Add an example, perhaps?
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
Logarithms weren't invented until the 17th century. (If I understand right!) And thus will be an anachronism for the setting.
– elemtilas
53 mins ago
1
1
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
It's renaissance-esque, which google says is 1300 – 1600. That touches on the 17th Century, and fun anachronisms are a staple of fantasy.
– Kyyshak
51 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
Anachronisms when it comes to mathematics are not a problem. It's renaissance-esque, not actual renaissance.
– Gunnar Södergren
47 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Right now your system is quite resilient, yes you can buy the whole system but that's expensive.
Current system:
- ~98 stocks per seat.
- Fill any remaining unclaimed seats with the largest remaining stockholders.
There's not a lot of room to exploit this system other than the direct purchase of stocks. The only thing more resilient would be:
- Largest 51 stockholders.
We need to create some weaknesses to get our crowbar into the cracks
- 10 seats per guild.
- 1 seat appointed by first past the post election for an upstanding member of society to break any tied votes.
Now you have the opportunity to elect the pirate king and get a free extra seat, however you still have to be the largest player in the game. So lets add an extra rule:
- Minimum holding of 100 stocks (total across all guilds) to hold a seat
Now if I hold 1 stock there's a seat empty somewhere and that can't be. It needs to be offered to someone who holds enough stocks to hold a seat, which basically means someone who already holds a seat is getting an extra one cheap. The balance of the system is now off kilter, the small stock holders are affecting the major players by giving them a boost.
The more stocks held by stockholders holding <100 stocks, the more valuable each stock over that 100 threshold is.
If there are enough small players then a small group of large stockholders can control the whole system.
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Right now your system is quite resilient, yes you can buy the whole system but that's expensive.
Current system:
- ~98 stocks per seat.
- Fill any remaining unclaimed seats with the largest remaining stockholders.
There's not a lot of room to exploit this system other than the direct purchase of stocks. The only thing more resilient would be:
- Largest 51 stockholders.
We need to create some weaknesses to get our crowbar into the cracks
- 10 seats per guild.
- 1 seat appointed by first past the post election for an upstanding member of society to break any tied votes.
Now you have the opportunity to elect the pirate king and get a free extra seat, however you still have to be the largest player in the game. So lets add an extra rule:
- Minimum holding of 100 stocks (total across all guilds) to hold a seat
Now if I hold 1 stock there's a seat empty somewhere and that can't be. It needs to be offered to someone who holds enough stocks to hold a seat, which basically means someone who already holds a seat is getting an extra one cheap. The balance of the system is now off kilter, the small stock holders are affecting the major players by giving them a boost.
The more stocks held by stockholders holding <100 stocks, the more valuable each stock over that 100 threshold is.
If there are enough small players then a small group of large stockholders can control the whole system.
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Right now your system is quite resilient, yes you can buy the whole system but that's expensive.
Current system:
- ~98 stocks per seat.
- Fill any remaining unclaimed seats with the largest remaining stockholders.
There's not a lot of room to exploit this system other than the direct purchase of stocks. The only thing more resilient would be:
- Largest 51 stockholders.
We need to create some weaknesses to get our crowbar into the cracks
- 10 seats per guild.
- 1 seat appointed by first past the post election for an upstanding member of society to break any tied votes.
Now you have the opportunity to elect the pirate king and get a free extra seat, however you still have to be the largest player in the game. So lets add an extra rule:
- Minimum holding of 100 stocks (total across all guilds) to hold a seat
Now if I hold 1 stock there's a seat empty somewhere and that can't be. It needs to be offered to someone who holds enough stocks to hold a seat, which basically means someone who already holds a seat is getting an extra one cheap. The balance of the system is now off kilter, the small stock holders are affecting the major players by giving them a boost.
The more stocks held by stockholders holding <100 stocks, the more valuable each stock over that 100 threshold is.
If there are enough small players then a small group of large stockholders can control the whole system.
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
Right now your system is quite resilient, yes you can buy the whole system but that's expensive.
Current system:
- ~98 stocks per seat.
- Fill any remaining unclaimed seats with the largest remaining stockholders.
There's not a lot of room to exploit this system other than the direct purchase of stocks. The only thing more resilient would be:
- Largest 51 stockholders.
We need to create some weaknesses to get our crowbar into the cracks
- 10 seats per guild.
- 1 seat appointed by first past the post election for an upstanding member of society to break any tied votes.
Now you have the opportunity to elect the pirate king and get a free extra seat, however you still have to be the largest player in the game. So lets add an extra rule:
- Minimum holding of 100 stocks (total across all guilds) to hold a seat
Now if I hold 1 stock there's a seat empty somewhere and that can't be. It needs to be offered to someone who holds enough stocks to hold a seat, which basically means someone who already holds a seat is getting an extra one cheap. The balance of the system is now off kilter, the small stock holders are affecting the major players by giving them a boost.
The more stocks held by stockholders holding <100 stocks, the more valuable each stock over that 100 threshold is.
If there are enough small players then a small group of large stockholders can control the whole system.
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
answered 1 hour ago
Separatrix
70.6k30166276
70.6k30166276
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gunnar Södergren is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128299%2fwhat-would-be-a-seemingly-fair-but-still-unfair-way-of-dividing-electorates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. I'm too lazy to write up an answer right now, but you might look up gerrymandering in the USA. If someone wants to take this and run with it for the points I won't be offended.
– pojo-guy
1 hour ago
"Unfair" is relative. You have to define "fair" in order to know what "unfair" looks like. To my European social democratic eye your system looks suspiciously like extremely unfair rampant capitalism o the sort we have revolutions to get rid of. :-)
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Your last remark about the mathematical difficulty is quite confusing. I don't see your goal here.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
@StephenG First of all, bold of you to assume that I'm not (I'm Swedish) ;). Secondly: Oh, it is very unfair from a classist point-of-view, since you can literally buy votes in this system. Third: you make an excellent point, I'll revise the question.
– Gunnar Södergren
1 hour ago
The way I'm reading this, people can essentially just buy their seats? If I have enough money to buy a seat, then where does dividing come into this?
– AndyD273
1 hour ago